On 1/20/15 9:01 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Jim Nasby (Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com) wrote:
>> >+1. In particular I'm very concerned with the idea of doing this via roles, because that would make it trivial for
anysuperuser to disable auditing. The only good option I could see to provide this kind of flexibility would be
allowingthe user to provide a function that accepts role, object, etc and make return a boolean. The performance of
thatwould presumably suck with anything but a C function, but we could provide some C functions to handle simple
cases.
> Superusers will be able to bypass, trivially, anything that's done in
> the process space of PG. The only possible exception to that being an
> SELinux or similar solution, but I don't think that's what you were
> getting at.
Not if the GUC was startup-only. That would allow someone with OS access to the server to prevent a Postgres superuser
fromdisabling it.
> I certainly don't think having the user provide a C function to specify
> what should be audited as making any sense- if they can do that, they
> can use the same hooks pgaudit is using and skip the middle-man. As for
> the performance concern you raise, I actually don't buy into it at all.
> It's not like we worry about the performance of checking permissions on
> objects in general and, for my part, I like to think that's because it's
> pretty darn quick already.
I was only mentioning C because of performance concerns. If SQL or plpgsql is fast enough then there's no need.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
